Actually Lawrence, you're not far off in thinking that there is something amiss in my rantings here... you're coming at it from the wrong angle however. It actually started off as kind of a joke, then I was trying to press people's buttons and I've realized it's gotten out of hand, so...
It all started with me making the ridiculous remark that the removal of Hussein in and of itself was a positive result of this war... of course, the very idea that this latest murderous rampage of the U$A has brought about anything good is beyond laughable. Saddam is gone, sure, but Bush is at least as bad and probably worse. Iraq is now in danger of becoming a cesspool of wrongful imprisonment, torture, and political repression. And they will never be rid of the stench of American imperialism - just look at Japan and Germany for proof of that. Clearly, the atrocities visited on the Iraqi people by the U.S. are immeasurably worse than they've ever endured. And the worst is undoubtedly yet to come.
What's sickening is that this IS all over oil. If America was at all sincere about freeing the Iraqi people, obviously oil would have to be taken out of the equation. Since there is oil there, and since Americans are going to make all the money from it, America's actions were inexcusable, even if one could buy the line that Iraq might be a bit closer to a free society without Hussein. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the ONLY possible reason for the Bush administration to have plans to attack Iraq even before 9/11 was to steal their oil. Decent countries only take action out of altruism, not to advance their own interests. History speaks for itself on this.
Besides which, the U.S. at one time supported Saddam, and one doesn't have to know anything about the intricacies of foreign policy, let alone what goes on in a region as culturally, religiously, and politically stable and homogenous as the Middle East to know the simple fact that decent countries don't ever deal with awful people. And if they do, they certainly aren't allowed to change their position.
What really baffles me is why the left isn't taken more seriously in the U.S. We have incredibly thoughtful, broad-minded analysts like Michael Moore and Howard Zinn who present truly fair and balanced commentaries and are bursting at the seems with practical solutions to the problems of terrorism. Which is certainly not to say that I agree that there's as much a problem in the world with terrorism as there is with American cultural hegemony and warlust-driven imperialism. Hussein after all was the leader of a sovereign nation, not a terrorist, and didn't even have any weapons of mass destruction. The US hasn't found any, and they would be impossible to hide for such an extremely long time. Any suggestion that he would even have a passing interest in acquiring a nuclear weapon is obviously U.S. propaganda of the lowest sort. In short, Saddam was no danger to anyone, and the US, typically, was the unprovoked aggressor.The fact that the US went ahead w/o UN approval is quite obviously a war crime. Who cares if it took months, years or a decade to get results? At least innocent people wouldn't have been killed!
I have to say, in the midst of my charade, the thing that had me rolling on the floor was typing that bit about the US promoting liberty...that's got to be the biggest joke I can imagine. America is practically a prison, as those of us unfortunate enough to live here know all too well. Any honest assessment of America's net contribution to the causes of liberty, justice, and equality would quite obviously have to be expressed in the negative.
Our only hope as I see it is in brave folks like Michael Moore and Noam Chomsky, along with regular citizens like Lawrence and Rob who aren't afraid to truly think for themselves and voice thoughtful, constructive dissent.